CFC National Championships ( Closeds )

[Bob Armstrong]

It seems the CFC system of private bidding for national championships ( Canadian Closed/Zonal every second year; Canadian Women's Closed/Zonal every second year ) is in bad shape. The system seems very fragile.

Let's look at recent history:

1. The practice is that the CFC likes to approve bids one year in advance, and so generally tries to encourage bids by the prior year's AGM. At the 2008 Montreal AGM, there was no bid for the 2009 Canadian Closed/Zonal, nor the Women's Zonal.

2. President David Lavin was unable to generate any bid for the 2009 Canadian Closed between the July 2008 Montreal AGM and the summer of 2009. So Hal Bond, on the principle that some tournament was better than no tournament, put in a last minute, barebones bid in mid-2009, that the CFC accepted.

3. At the Edmonton 2009 AGM, there was no bid for either 2010 national closed.

4. Standards hoped for for a national championship were not met in part in 2009, and there was some vocal criticism, especially from the new Canadian Champion, IM Jean Hebert. Hal advised that the budget was limited, and that some volunteers withdrew at the last minute, and so some features of a national championship that might have been expected fell by the wayside. Hebert opined that no tournament was better than an inferior Canadian Championship. The 2009 Women's Zonal was also held - there seemed to be no public criticism of it. Jean Hebert in 2009 attended the FIDE World Cup ( first stage of the World Championship ) as the Canadian representative. Dina Kagramanov will be attending the 2010 FIDE Women's Knockout Championship for Canada.

5. The CFC felt there was some merit to Hebert's position that the bar should be set at a reasonable height for the Canadian Championship, and so GM Mark Bluvshtein filed a motion in mid-year 2009-10 to strengthen a bit the terms and conditions for holding a national championship ( eg. free accomodation for Canadian GM's ).

6. Between July 2009 and June 2010, President Eric Van Dusen was unable to foster any bids for the 2010 national championships.

7. At the 2010 Toronto July AGM, the governors did pass the Bluvshtein motion raising the standards somewhat for the Canadian Closed. There were no bids for the 2011 national closeds/zonals.

8. From the time Mark filed his motion, and even after it was passed by the governors, some organizers complained that it was a further disincentive to an organizer being willing to bid on the Closed ( note though that bids weren't coming in well before this motion was filed and passed ). Further, some organizers have said that obtaining sponsorship for the Closed is well-neigh impossible, because of its limited nature in terms of participants, and lack of public profile.

9. In July 2010, new CFC President Bob Gillanders advised that CFC was not going any longer to actively pursue bids for the 2010 Canadian Closed, nor the 2010 Canadian Women's Closed, and that it appeared these tournaments would not be held in 2010.

10. At the 2010 Toronto AGM, the governors passed a motion ( brought by me, based on an earlier motion filed a year before by then President David Lavin ) to create the non-executive officer position of Tournament Coordinator - one of his/her duties was to help foster bids for major Canadian Tournaments.

11. The position of Tournament Coordinator saw no volunteer come forward to take on the position, and it remains vacant still.

12. Some governors proposed that a committee be struck to look into the CFC Bidding Process ( it had been hoped that it would have been chaired by the Tournament Coordinator, had there been one ), and to make recommendations how the system could be strengthened, so that national championships would be held annually. To date no such committee has been struck.

It seems the CFC has a big problem here. One of our core objectives is the holding of national championships, and we are failing at it.

Any thoughts on any of the above for the new Executive?

Bob

[Jean Hebert]

It seems the CFC has a big problem here. One of our core objectives is the holding of national championships, and we are failing at it.

Any thoughts on any of the above for the new Executive?

There are quite a few things to say on the subject but if Governors have no interest in it, which seems to be the case, why lose time proposing and discussing ? Does the CFC executive have an interest in this, other than being able to say that it has had a Closed, no matter how ? First of all is the CFC willing to make a financial effort to give it a head start to respectability ?

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Jean:

There are quite a few things to say on the subject but if Governors have no interest in it, which seems to be the case, why lose time proposing and discussing ?

It is true generally, that it is hard to read how much interest governors have in something. For example, there have been over 40 views of this thread, and no replies before yours. And it is my experience that likely about 20 of those views have been the governors who do monitor the discussion boards on a regular basis. And yet they had no suggestions - doesn't mean they may not be interested though - they did read the thread. Also, I am a governor, and I am interested. You are a governor, and you are interested. So we know there are at least 2 of us willing to trade thoughts ( from little acorns, great oaks grow !! ). So if one governor being interested at least, is sufficient to deny " if Governors have no interest in it ", then tell me your " quite a few things to say on the subject ", so I can respond.

First of all is the CFC willing to make a financial effort to give it a head start to respectability ?

You are a governor. You can make a direct intervention. On the Governors' Discussion Board is a thread " The CFC Budget ". It is being used currently by CFC Treasurer Fred McKim to do a pre-consultation of the governors on what they would like to see in a revised 2010-11 budget they are currently drawing up for the governors to vote on. Please post on that thread what amount you think the CFC should incorporate this year in the budget to put towards the 2011 Canadian Closed/ Zonal, and why. It's the only way to get the ball rolling - to put the fox among the chickens.

Bob

[Bob Gillanders]

9. In July 2010, new CFC President Bob Gillanders advised that CFC was not going any longer to actively pursue bids for the 2010 Canadian Closed, nor the 2010 Canadian Women's Closed, and that it appeared these tournaments would not be held in 2010.

I don't remember saying that , but then at the AGM I did dwell on the fact that we had no bids for the Canadian Open or CYCC for 2011, and that that would be my focus. So I guess it was an easy step to infer I didn't care about the closed. I do care, but realistically, I guess the next one will be in 2011.

Anyone interested in running a closed, please email me at president@chess.ca

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Bob:

Sorry if I took your words for more than you intended. And I didn't mean by my point #9 that you didn't " care " about the Closed. What I heard was that it seemed to be an unfortunate occurrence that there would be no Closed in 2010, since we had no bids for it, nor for 2011.

Bob

[Jean Hebert]

Please post on that thread what amount you think the CFC should incorporate this year in the budget to put towards the 2011 Canadian Closed/ Zonal, and why.

I have no idea on what a realistic figure could be according to the CFC budget. I guess something between 3-5K would be a minimum (for a zonal year). If the CFC expects sponsors for its Closed (and it should) it should set the example. But before putting money in, the CFC, as I have said before, should draw basic (I dont like the word "minimum") absolute standards to be followed by the organizer. Putting money and services into an event and leaving the organizer do as he pleases does not make any sense to me. Besides, setting standards actually makes the organizers' job easier in letting know exactly what is expected of him (her).

By the way, what I mean by "standards" is not to tell organizers "to make an effort to get sponsors". This is simply wishful thinking that will not produce any result. Standards would be about, for example, tournament format, prize fund, number of top players provided with accomodation and/or other conditions, etc.

[Larry Bevand]

I have no idea on what a realistic figure could be according to the CFC budget. I guess something between 3-5K would be a minimum (for a zonal year). If the CFC expects sponsors for its Closed (and it should) it should set the example. But before putting money in, the CFC, as I have said before, should draw basic (I dont like the word "minimum") absolute standards to be followed by the organizer. Putting money and services into an event and leaving the organizer do as he pleases does not make any sense to me. Besides, setting standards actually makes the organizers' job easier in letting know exactly what is expected of him (her).

By the way, what I mean by "standards" is not to tell organizers "to make an effort to get sponsors". This is simply wishful thinking that will not produce any result. Standards would be about, for example, tournament format, prize fund, number of top players provided with accomodation and/or other conditions, etc.

I follow some great advice which I was given by a wise fellow many years ago...better to do something well...than to do it at all...so...if I can not do an an awesome job...I stay away....and if I fail...I willl leave it to others who are more capable...glad I am takin a break after 25 years at CMA at 32 years doing this full time

As Denis Cote, a great Montreal organizer, (someone who I totally respect) once said..."le monde des echecs est un monde ingrat"

Larry

[Fred McKim]

It is possible to view the 2009/2010 revenue and expenditure statement of the CFC online in the GL section.

It would seem that a National sponser or several hundred new members would be needed to get anywhere close to $5000, as much as everyone of us would love to see that.

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Jean:

Section 8 of The CFC Handbook, on the Canadian Closed/Zonal, now reads, as a result of the governors passing Motion 2010-13 ( Bluvshtein/Armstrong )
at the Toronto July AGM :

s. 811. ( a ) Each player will be responsible for paying his own entry fee, accommodation and meal expenses with the exception of the following:

( i ) the Canadian Champion and Runner-Up shall have their entry fee, accommodation and meal expenses paid by the tournament organizers;
(ii ) free entry shall be given to IM’s and GM’s;
( iii ) free accommodation should be provided for GM’s;

We do not yet have a bid for the 2011 Closed/Zonal. But if we did, would you play ? You would be given free entry, free accomdodation and a meal allowance, as past champion? Or would you require other things to be in place to play in the 2011 Canadian Championship?

I would note a few regulations now in place ( some as a result of the governors passing Motion 2010-14 ( Bluvshtein/Armstrong ) at the AGM ) setting some standards for Important Events ( Section 9 of the Handbook ), which includes the Closed/Zonal ( I have picked out some of the sections dealing with issues that have been raised in prior threads on this topic ):

s. 904. A minimum of 3 demonstration boards should be provided for the top boards. Demonstration boards should be large with marked contrast in colours.
The demonstration boards should be located high enough so that the lower part of the boards are not obscured by the players.
Markers should be provided to indicate on the demonstration boards whether it is White or Black's move as well as the move number

s. 911. Convenient facilities should be available for players and spectators to obtain coffee, soft drinks and sandwiches while the games are in progress. These should be located in a separate room adjacent to the main playing area and located such that neither noise from nor traffic to these facilities will disturb the players.

s. 917. Clear and easily seen numbers should be provided to readily show the location of each board. The boards should be numbered in logical sequence to enable each player to find his board with ease thus avoiding excess milling around at the start of each round. Name cards should be made for all top players ( all players in the Canadian Closed/Zonal tournament ), with name, rating, title ( if any ) and province noted, and displayed at their board.

s. 919. Score sheets should be provided with provision for copies so that one copy can be turned in and one copy retained by the player.

s. 922. A large notice board should be provided with room for individual players' scores, announcements, pairings, standings etc. This board should be in a well lighted location preferably outside of but near the entrance of the main playing room. If the playing room is extraordinarily large, the notice board can be located in a remote corner at a distance from all players.

s. 928. A handout should be given to each spectator. This handout should include information on (a) The Chess Federation of Canada (b) The Chess Foundation (c) The Tournament in Progress and (d) Information and Advice for Spectators.

s. 932. The top boards should be located on an elevated stage with a demonstration board for each. For major events, it is suggested that wall boards be provided for a minimum of five boards.

s. 933. For the Canadian Closed, whether or not a Zonal, round by round bulletins should be provided, either online or in print. These should include all the games from each round.

s. 934. For the Canadian Closed, whether or not a Zonal, a tournament website should be created with a minimum of:
A. Live transmission of a minimum of the 3 top boards.
B. A players’ list, and pairings and standings updated after each round.
C. Photos of the players and the event.

With these standards now in place in Sections 8 & 9 of the Handbook, do you consider that the Closed/Zonal would implement a reasonable standard, befitting the national championship?

Bob

[Dale Haukenfrers]

I recommend making should be into will be.